Tryon: Remember goals of 2050 plan

Published: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, February 15, 2013 at 8:06 p.m.

Anyone who listened to pop music in the 1970s knows the phrase "been so long, I can't remember when" from one of Carole King's greatest hits.

The song came to mind recently when I tried to recall the history behind, and origins of, the Sarasota 2050 plan.

It had been so long since the plan was in its formative stages that I couldn't remember when that occurred.

Fortunately, one of the advantages of working at the Herald-Tribune is handy access to electronic archives. So, a search of the system reminded me just how long ago the plan emerged.

How long ago was it?

Before the recession.

Prior to the real estate crisis.

Before 9/11.

That's right, before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

We adults remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the terrorists struck.

But, with some exceptions, few people -- including those of us who were here back then and watching local government -- remember the details of the 2050 planning process.

For that matter, a lot of folks -- put me in this category -- need a refresher course before trying to articulate the basics of the plan.

Even though 2001 may seem like ancient history -- in view of all that has transpired -- and 2050 seems light years away, the plan's past is relevant in 2013.

That's the case because Sarasota 2050 remains on the books and county commissioners intend to consider changes in response to complaints from affected landowners and prospective developers.

Parts worth repeating

Philosopher George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." However, some parts of the plan's past -- the early stages -- would be worth repeating.

Sarasota 2050 is, as its name implies, a long-term planning document, complete with -- of course -- regulations.

It affects land areas throughout Sarasota County but focuses on the relatively large tracts east of Interstate 75.

Those parts of the plan create the potential for the rural acreage to be developed at higher densities than long-existing zoning maps would allow. For instance, according to the plan, residential "villages" and compact commercial development could be permitted in undeveloped areas otherwise zoned for agriculture or five-acre homesites.

The plan contains important caveats for increasing density, however: Housing must be compact and offered in various, specific forms; commercial areas must be compatible with neighborhoods; substantial swaths of greenspace and natural corridors must be preserved; the developments must be "fiscally neutral" to county government.

There are other criteria. Too many, according to landowners and developers. Too few, according to groups and citizens who want tight controls.

Former County Administrator Jim Ley and ex-County Commissioner Jon Thaxton, in recent conversations with me, framed the debate that is likely to occur.

Thaxton thinks Sarasota 2050 has already been gutted by changes his former colleagues approved after the plan was approved in 2004. Ley believes the plan was damaged -- by the imposition of too many regulations and restraints -- before its passage.

Furthermore, Thaxton is concerned that the elimination of the plan's regulations will signal to environmentalists and managed-growth advocates that good plans will eventually be undermined by elected officials pressured by the development industry. Ley said that, unless changes are made, developers will continue to distrust community-planning initiatives.

(Note: I asked both Thaxton and Ley for their views because of their knowledge of planning and involvement in the process that led to Sarasota 2050. Both made clear that they did not intend for their remarks to be viewed as criticism of their successors.)

Focus on the principles

Anyone looking for a point-by-point analysis of the changes recently proposed by developers -- interviewed by county staff -- should look elsewhere. For now.

I'd prefer the public dialogue focus on the principles and process that led to the plan. For now.

The details are, indeed, critical. But the devil is in the details, and that makes it hard as hell to have lofty aspirations.

Since it has been so long since the 2050 plan was developed and approved, it would be useful to start with a back-to-basics review. (It's been even longer since a community-wide process -- led by the Urban Land Institute in 1999 -- created a consensus in favor of pursuing an alternative development plan for east county.)

The consensus that resulted from the ULI exercise was real. There was not unanimity; however, I remember (and the archives support this recollection) a sense of optimism that Sarasota County had the capacity to challenge the status quo of development.

There was general agreement in favor of a concept -- that landowners could create master-planned communities east of I-75, in exchange for meeting higher standards of development and enhancing environmental protection. And, by supporting this alternative, environmentalists and others would accept development that protects and connects valuable natural assets.

Those were the goals then. How can they be remembered and embraced again?

<p>Anyone who listened to pop music in the 1970s knows the phrase "been so long, I can't remember when" from one of Carole King's greatest hits.</p><p>The song came to mind recently when I tried to recall the history behind, and origins of, the Sarasota 2050 plan.</p><p>It had been so long since the plan was in its formative stages that I couldn't remember when that occurred.</p><p>Fortunately, one of the advantages of working at the Herald-Tribune is handy access to electronic archives. So, a search of the system reminded me just how long ago the plan emerged.</p><p>How long ago was it?</p><p>Before the recession.</p><p>Prior to the real estate crisis.</p><p>Before 9/11.</p><p>That's right, before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.</p><p>We adults remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the terrorists struck.</p><p>But, with some exceptions, few people -- including those of us who were here back then and watching local government -- remember the details of the 2050 planning process.</p><p>For that matter, a lot of folks -- put me in this category -- need a refresher course before trying to articulate the basics of the plan.</p><p>Even though 2001 may seem like ancient history -- in view of all that has transpired -- and 2050 seems light years away, the plan's past is relevant in 2013.</p><p>That's the case because Sarasota 2050 remains on the books and county commissioners intend to consider changes in response to complaints from affected landowners and prospective developers.</p><p>Parts worth repeating</p><p>Philosopher George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." However, some parts of the plan's past -- the early stages -- would be worth repeating.</p><p>Sarasota 2050 is, as its name implies, a long-term planning document, complete with -- of course -- regulations.</p><p>It affects land areas throughout Sarasota County but focuses on the relatively large tracts east of Interstate 75.</p><p>Those parts of the plan create the potential for the rural acreage to be developed at higher densities than long-existing zoning maps would allow. For instance, according to the plan, residential "villages" and compact commercial development could be permitted in undeveloped areas otherwise zoned for agriculture or five-acre homesites.</p><p>The plan contains important caveats for increasing density, however: Housing must be compact and offered in various, specific forms; commercial areas must be compatible with neighborhoods; substantial swaths of greenspace and natural corridors must be preserved; the developments must be "fiscally neutral" to county government.</p><p>There are other criteria. Too many, according to landowners and developers. Too few, according to groups and citizens who want tight controls.</p><p>Former County Administrator Jim Ley and ex-County Commissioner Jon Thaxton, in recent conversations with me, framed the debate that is likely to occur.</p><p>Thaxton thinks Sarasota 2050 has already been gutted by changes his former colleagues approved after the plan was approved in 2004. Ley believes the plan was damaged -- by the imposition of too many regulations and restraints -- before its passage.</p><p>Furthermore, Thaxton is concerned that the elimination of the plan's regulations will signal to environmentalists and managed-growth advocates that good plans will eventually be undermined by elected officials pressured by the development industry. Ley said that, unless changes are made, developers will continue to distrust community-planning initiatives.</p><p>(Note: I asked both Thaxton and Ley for their views because of their knowledge of planning and involvement in the process that led to Sarasota 2050. Both made clear that they did not intend for their remarks to be viewed as criticism of their successors.)</p><p>Focus on the principles</p><p>Anyone looking for a point-by-point analysis of the changes recently proposed by developers -- interviewed by county staff -- should look elsewhere. For now.</p><p>I'd prefer the public dialogue focus on the principles and process that led to the plan. For now.</p><p>The details are, indeed, critical. But the devil is in the details, and that makes it hard as hell to have lofty aspirations.</p><p>Since it has been so long since the 2050 plan was developed and approved, it would be useful to start with a back-to-basics review. (It's been even longer since a community-wide process -- led by the Urban Land Institute in 1999 -- created a consensus in favor of pursuing an alternative development plan for east county.)</p><p>The consensus that resulted from the ULI exercise was real. There was not unanimity; however, I remember (and the archives support this recollection) a sense of optimism that Sarasota County had the capacity to challenge the status quo of development.</p><p>There was general agreement in favor of a concept -- that landowners could create master-planned communities east of I-75, in exchange for meeting higher standards of development and enhancing environmental protection. And, by supporting this alternative, environmentalists and others would accept development that protects and connects valuable natural assets.</p><p>Those were the goals then. How can they be remembered and embraced again?</p><p>Tom Tryon is opinion editor. Tom.Tryon@heraldtribune.com</p>